6 ms·

That's exactly what reasoning axiomatically does, it gets you closer to the truth. It gets you from "I don't know anything" to "these are the plausible theories

That's exactly what reasoning axiomatically does, it gets you closer to the truth. It gets you from "I don't know anything" to "these are the plausible theories". I wonder why you think that allowing people to speculate based on these "axioms" is so dangerous? If they're wrong, they're just wrong aren't they? As to clues, there are plenty. Biden proclaiming that he would put an end to Nord Stream 2 is a clue. That no one seems to be in a big rush to find out who did it given the scale of this and that it destroyed important infrastructure of a NATO member is a clue. That "there is no evidence that Russia did it" as the Swedish investigators said, is a clue.

mannerheim 4y ago
Which axiom gets you that it must have been a state actor who did it?
- alienicecream 4y ago
  For me it's the one where governments with the most capable intelligence agencies in the world are quiet about who committed an act of international terrorism against an important piece of industrial infrastructure at the bottom of the ocean. One largely owned by Germany, a key NATO member. If this was some eco terrorism (imagining for a moment that they would have the means to procure the explosives and expertise to blow up a concrete encased pipeline at the bottom of the sea), it would present a serious risk for oil and gas infrastructure everywhere. It would not be taken lightly.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    And Germany somehow knows who does this in your story and keeps quiet because...
  - pvg 4y ago
    In 2014 there was a sabotage operation against a munitions depot in Vrbětice in the Czech republic, a NATO member. There was no official attribution for half a decade. Lack of immediate attribution as a basis for assigning responsibility seems mostly cherrypicking and vibes.
    - alienicecream 4y ago
      Valid point, but I don't think the importance and notoriety of these events are comparable.
      - pvg 4y ago
        Maybe but that's the essence of cherry-picking. It suggests that you aren't actually 'working from nothing towards plausible theories' as you think (and I'm not saying this is intentional or some sort of intellectual or moral failing, we all do this) but working backwards from a conclusion to select supporting points and counterpoints can be dismissed for not being sufficiently countery.
        alienicecream 4y ago
        Is not cherry picking to apply relevant heuristics. I'm an average news consumer and I had never heard of your example. I doubt many people have, and probably even fewer care. It's just not as noteworthy as what happened here and that in itself is a factor in analyzing the response to it.
        tptacek 4y ago
        The fact that you hadn't heard of his example is a reason _not_ to trust your own first-principles logic, not a reason to rely on it. I'm still stuck on the idea that we're having this discussion at all, though. It's really hard for people to get past the idea that Hersh can be an absolute kook and whatever their prior beliefs about the Nord Stream incidents can still be valid. It goes in both directions. There's a comment elsewhere on this thread suggesting that, since Hersh's story is obviously fictitious (I tend to agree), it's probably the case that the US had nothing to do with the detonation. But that doesn't follow either!
        alienicecream 4y ago
        Yes, I said it was a valid point but you're overestimating it's value. The magnitude of the event matters too in judging it's response, and the Czech story is nothing by comparison. It's getting kind of tiring seeing you all over every thread in here smearing Hersh as a discredited wacko. I personally don't buy it, much less from someone who seems so invested in spreading it. I don't know what your motivation is, but please refrain from doing that in this comment chain, it's just irrelevant, thanks.
pvg 4y ago
It gets you from "I don't know anything" to "these are the plausible theories". It doesn't, it just lets you wrap your biases and motivated reasoning in a veneer of rigour that isn't really there. After all, you're the one picking the 'axioms' out of an infinite set and they aren't used for anything else. There isn't anything wrong with idle speculation but there also isn't anything wrong with people pointing some idle speculation is largely baseless.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> Biden proclaiming that he would put an end to Nord Stream 2 is a clue. "We are going to put an end to poverty!" Normal people: "OK, social programs." Galaxy-brain people: "He's gonna genocide poor people! There's no other explanation!" NordStream 2 was decertified shortly after the Russians invaded Ukraine, and NordStream 2 AG filed for bankruptcy about a week later. I'm very comfortable fitting that within "put an end to".
- alienicecream 4y ago
  "decertified" and "rusting hunk of twisted metal at the bottom of the ocean" are two different things. Apparently the US government agrees, people like Victoria Nuland made a point to express their satisfaction that it's the latter now.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They are, but both qualify as “ended” just fine. Being happy about something’s destruction doesn’t mean you did it. I was happy when OBL got offed, but that doesn’t make me a Navy SEAL.
    - alienicecream 4y ago
      Depends what you mean by "ended", one of those is permanent. I'm not saying being happy about it is proof they did it, I'm saying that it indicates that they are aware of a difference, and that it indirectly bolsters the argument for a motive. I really doubt any of these points would be in dispute if all this circumstantial evidence was pointing at Russia.
astrange 4y ago
Rationalist reasoning about things you don't actually know about in the real world not only leads you to guaranteed wrong conclusions, it makes you think you're right because you made up a bunch of math about it. This is why people think computers are going to develop AGI and enslave them.

mannerheim 4y ago

Which axiom gets you that it must have been a state actor who did it?

alienicecream 4y ago
For me it's the one where governments with the most capable intelligence agencies in the world are quiet about who committed an act of international terrorism against an important piece of industrial infrastructure at the bottom of the ocean. One largely owned by Germany, a key NATO member. If this was some eco terrorism (imagining for a moment that they would have the means to procure the explosives and expertise to blow up a concrete encased pipeline at the bottom of the sea), it would present a serious risk for oil and gas infrastructure everywhere. It would not be taken lightly.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  And Germany somehow knows who does this in your story and keeps quiet because...
- pvg 4y ago
  In 2014 there was a sabotage operation against a munitions depot in Vrbětice in the Czech republic, a NATO member. There was no official attribution for half a decade. Lack of immediate attribution as a basis for assigning responsibility seems mostly cherrypicking and vibes.
  - alienicecream 4y ago
    Valid point, but I don't think the importance and notoriety of these events are comparable.
    - pvg 4y ago
      Maybe but that's the essence of cherry-picking. It suggests that you aren't actually 'working from nothing towards plausible theories' as you think (and I'm not saying this is intentional or some sort of intellectual or moral failing, we all do this) but working backwards from a conclusion to select supporting points and counterpoints can be dismissed for not being sufficiently countery.
      - alienicecream 4y ago
        Is not cherry picking to apply relevant heuristics. I'm an average news consumer and I had never heard of your example. I doubt many people have, and probably even fewer care. It's just not as noteworthy as what happened here and that in itself is a factor in analyzing the response to it.
        tptacek 4y ago
        The fact that you hadn't heard of his example is a reason _not_ to trust your own first-principles logic, not a reason to rely on it. I'm still stuck on the idea that we're having this discussion at all, though. It's really hard for people to get past the idea that Hersh can be an absolute kook and whatever their prior beliefs about the Nord Stream incidents can still be valid. It goes in both directions. There's a comment elsewhere on this thread suggesting that, since Hersh's story is obviously fictitious (I tend to agree), it's probably the case that the US had nothing to do with the detonation. But that doesn't follow either!
        alienicecream 4y ago
        Yes, I said it was a valid point but you're overestimating it's value. The magnitude of the event matters too in judging it's response, and the Czech story is nothing by comparison. It's getting kind of tiring seeing you all over every thread in here smearing Hersh as a discredited wacko. I personally don't buy it, much less from someone who seems so invested in spreading it. I don't know what your motivation is, but please refrain from doing that in this comment chain, it's just irrelevant, thanks.

pvg 4y ago

It gets you from "I don't know anything" to "these are the plausible theories". It doesn't, it just lets you wrap your biases and motivated reasoning in a veneer of rigour that isn't really there. After all, you're the one picking the 'axioms' out of an infinite set and they aren't used for anything else. There isn't anything wrong with idle speculation but there also isn't anything wrong with people pointing some idle speculation is largely baseless.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Biden proclaiming that he would put an end to Nord Stream 2 is a clue. "We are going to put an end to poverty!" Normal people: "OK, social programs." Galaxy-brain people: "He's gonna genocide poor people! There's no other explanation!" NordStream 2 was decertified shortly after the Russians invaded Ukraine, and NordStream 2 AG filed for bankruptcy about a week later. I'm very comfortable fitting that within "put an end to".

alienicecream 4y ago
"decertified" and "rusting hunk of twisted metal at the bottom of the ocean" are two different things. Apparently the US government agrees, people like Victoria Nuland made a point to express their satisfaction that it's the latter now.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They are, but both qualify as “ended” just fine. Being happy about something’s destruction doesn’t mean you did it. I was happy when OBL got offed, but that doesn’t make me a Navy SEAL.
  - alienicecream 4y ago
    Depends what you mean by "ended", one of those is permanent. I'm not saying being happy about it is proof they did it, I'm saying that it indicates that they are aware of a difference, and that it indirectly bolsters the argument for a motive. I really doubt any of these points would be in dispute if all this circumstantial evidence was pointing at Russia.

astrange 4y ago

Rationalist reasoning about things you don't actually know about in the real world not only leads you to guaranteed wrong conclusions, it makes you think you're right because you made up a bunch of math about it. This is why people think computers are going to develop AGI and enslave them.